Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread David McLaughlin
> On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:59 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 333 (patched) > > > > > > We should only consider `UP` if the previous

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
> On Jan. 24, 2018, 6:59 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 333 (patched) > > > > > > We should only consider `UP` if the previous

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread David McLaughlin
> On Jan. 25, 2018, 2:59 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 333 (patched) > > > > > > We should only consider `UP` if the previous

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196198 --- src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread Aurora ReviewBot
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196196 --- Ship it! Master (dbe7137) is green with this patch.

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread David McLaughlin
> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 319 (patched) > > > > > > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-24 Thread David McLaughlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/ --- (Updated Jan. 25, 2018, 2:04 a.m.) Review request for Aurora and Jordan Ly.

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread David McLaughlin
> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 319 (patched) > > > > > > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
> On Jan. 23, 2018, 10:11 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 319 (patched) > > > > > > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread David McLaughlin
> On Jan. 23, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 319 (patched) > > > > > > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be `DOWN`?

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread Bill Farner
> On Jan. 23, 2018, 10:11 a.m., Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java > > Lines 319 (patched) > > > > > > Shouldn't `RUNNING` -> `PARTITIONED` be

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196047 --- src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/sla/SlaAlgorithm.java

Re: Review Request 65281: Support PARTITIONED state in SLA calculations

2018-01-23 Thread Jordan Ly
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65281/#review196046 --- Ship it! Nice test for future cases. - Jordan Ly On Jan.